Atheism & theism: the debate continues

Having decided to turn my mind to other matters, I then came across the article in the Guardian by Madeleine Bunting in which she summarises the state of the debate between theists and atheists and makes particular reference to Richard Dawkins.

The article itself is lucid, but the comment thread (while including some interesting observations and responses) displays some of the intemperately-expressed categorical statements that make this debate more of a shouting match between people who don’t want to listen to those who start from a different set of assumptions. I am grateful that some of those commenting on this blog showed more genuine interest in the central issues and respected those who differed.

I link it here because it is a place where the debates we have had on recent posts here might be continued. I remain unsure whether the online medium is a useful one for the conducting of such debates.

51.371261-0.089800

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

9 Responses to “Atheism & theism: the debate continues”

“some of the intemperately-expressed categorical statements that make this debate more of a shouting match between people who don’t want to listen to those who start from a different set of assumptions.”
I saw & heard a similar shouting match, albeit somewhat one-sided, last Tuesday lunchtime when viewing the last PMQ’s of that parliament. I was given to specualting to myself that probably many of those indulging in that hooligan behaviour may be the very people complaining about discipline in schools and the disgraceful behaviour of today’s children & especially teenagers. Did I get it wrong that quite different behavioural rules apply in the Commons?
Yes and I did read Madeleine Bunting’s very good summary of the state of play in the theist/atheist ‘debate’.

Hi (sorry Nick, I know I said I would sit back awhile & be quiet, but this is so tempting, please don’t feel obliged to reply to me directly, I know you are busy. And please do open a blog on RD’s plans to arrest the pope).

I know nothing about Madeleine Bunting. I gather (from the net) that she is catholic, but that doesn’t make her wrong, nor does it make her opinions worthless, though I guess she doesn’t agree easily with atheists.

I’ve read her article, and I don’t understand much of it, she is far better read than I am. She draws upon Karen Armstrong’s books for some of her arguments. I’ve not read Karen Armstrong, I’m sure Karen is a fine lady. Nor have I read Jonathon Swift except for Gulliver’s Travels.)

As usual, when I read articles such as this, I try to cut out the ‘woffle’ (i.e the bits I don’t understand), and I pick up the odd phrase or sentence that actually says something concrete. Such as……..(in no particular order).

“The paradox of New Atheism is that in its bid to make religion unacceptable, it has contributed to making it a subject that is considered worth talking about again”.

Good, good, and thrice good. Let us talk, not pray.

“Dawkins is rejecting a particular conception of God, the God of a literal reading of the Bible who made the world in six days.”
Yes, he admits that, so what’s new, and what is your definition of god?

“When someone is killed in a car accident, western rationality is good at analysing how the brakes failed and the road curved, but has nothing to say about why, on that particular day, the brakes failed when it was you in the car.”

The brakes failed because they were not maintained properly, or because you were just very unlucky. There is no deeper meaning.

I believe that the theist/atheist debate is well timed. Madeleine Buntings’ was courteous and measured as all such debate should be. I am neither an atheist nor agnostic but I acknowledge the right of all people to believe as they so feel inclined. No-one can prove or disprove the existence of God or higher purpose for existence, every belief system, theist or otherwise, being based on faith in the correctness of that belief.
I offer a simple observation for the debate. Every effect has a prior cause, whatever we may believe that to be. Every form in the material Universe is an effect, and likewise has to have had a prior cause. Examining the structure of material forms it can be observed that they do not come into being by chance, nor are they randomly structured, but are strictly governed by law, natural law. Natural laws were not formed by the forms, but ordered those forms. In other words natural law precedes forms in order that they could be so formed. All matter is an effect so regarding the Big Bang theory we have to acknowledge that its cause existed prior to it, prior to matter. What, beyond all matter, could this cause be? No, this does not prove God, but it should at least indicate to those who believe only in matter that it too is the effect of a higher non-matter cause. The debate continues.

I don’t want to talk that much about the atheist/theist debate. I did however read your RT article Nick, and how a blogger needs a certain set of defences to continue blogging in any meaningful sense that might advance an arguement. What you do in your blog Nick is to complicate issues that many of our leaders want to make (and keep) simple because it serves their ends to make them simple. It seems to me that our society has been woefully damaged over the last 30 years by ‘leaders’ who set about making complicated issues simple for their own power seeking ends. A ‘lady’ and a recent convert some to mind. We are all very likely to get further gutfulls of this over the next few weeks and be very sick of it when May 7th comes.

“I remain unsure whether the online medium is a useful one for the conducting of such debates”. The medievals said that abuse of something doesn’t invalidate the use. Religious blogs seem to attract a great deal of frenzy so they need tighter moderation. then, at the other end of the scale, we have Ms Bunting’s particular form of lifeless prose, outlining the known weaknesses of Dawkins for the benefit of the unwashed. The liberal intelligentsia can be stupefyingly boring in what Lionel kindly describes as their “courteous and measured” way.

I think that the value of on-line discussion depends on the quality of the contributors. Obviously ‘tinternet incites a good deal of immaturity because it is somewhat anonymous, and the scale of content is so huge that people often expect never to visit a given site again, so there is a sense of unaccountability. Certainly on-line discussion forums are no place for evangelism, because it is a totally unprepared and largely hostile audience. I have been contributing on the religion forums at amazon (scroll down to the bottom of any theology/church history book page). I was initially shocked by the blatant atheist religious intolerance dominating them, but since I got involved things have mellowed somewhat, because I’ve been calling them on it and demanding evidence and countering their assumptions. It probably won’t have a long term effect, but some people tell me I’ve been helpful.